It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The problem with assuming...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:18 PM
Ok this might end up being a long post, and if it does end up being in a second post, please wait until I finish before answering. If this has been posted in the past, I apologize.

Note: This post is not meant to insult the intelligence of either supporters or skeptics of the UFO phenomenon. But merely to point out certain things that can if anything help make better reasoning of arguments concerning the behavior or the UFO phenomenon. To the skeptics, please take note that I will be talking from the point of view of assuming that we have UFO evidence that can't be disputed or can't be debunked. Of course this is all just supposition so you can take it as you will. If a mod thinks this post is worth being stickied I'd be very honored. If not, let the comments roll.

The argument of Intelligence v. Level for Intelligence.

Ok, I'm sure we've all heard this before "They've travelled light years to our planet, so therefore they MUST be intelligent.

Well yes, of course they would have to be intelligent in order to pilot anything, that is obvious. What people should be asking however is the level of intelligence of these beings and what would it be equal to. Let me put it this way. Right here in our own earth there are millions upon millions of people, all with differing levels of intelligence suiting their own personal goals/dreams/choices/etc. Let me put it to you this way. At some point in the past, having and riding an automobile not only required money but an understanding that back then we would've described the person driving to be an "educated" person. Yet now a days, the technology has been stream lined to the point where anyone can learn to drive a car even individuals we would hastilly describe as being "un-educated".

Investigators should really question not only the beings riding the saucer, but also the beings behind creating it. Think of it this way. When you go to work, you are really only taught certain tasks, they don't really teach you absolutely everything there is about a company unless that is your occupation. Now I'm not trying to demean the education of those that are astronauts or pilots here as I am not sure what your educational certificates entail before you're even allowed to fly a plane. But I'll make a bet that your certificate, while it does entail an understanding of flying the vehicle and mantaining it, I hardly doubt that it would entail that you build your own plane. That's not the perogative, only that you can fly and maintain the equipment already built by someone that can (arguably of course) be considered more "educated" on the matter than you.

So to say "they must be intelligent" one must ask on what level? Have they streamlined their technology so that people that can be considered "less educated" in their society can make the "jump to light speed"? or are we talking about serious intellectuals? (people with the level of education as say, an astronaut) we simply don't know. Yes, if we're assuming aliens really are visiting us, they obviously do have technology that far surpasses ours. But are we dealing with beings/pilots that have a high level of intelligence? or someone with the level of intelligence as "Joe anybody, taking a vacation trip to the earth to relax and mess with earthlings?"

Yes one can definetely argue that we as a society grew along side the technology and slowly learned to understand it (cars), and that's definetely true. But what level of intelligence driving the technology can only be left to supposition (an educated individual can drive a car just as well as some ignorant drunkard. Same can apply to Aliens)

Point #2 coming up in a bit, please don't comment until I'm done. Thank you.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:35 PM
Point 2: Why aren't they communicating if they're so intelligent?

The problem that arises with this argument is that

1) we're making the assumption they are "very intelligent" (see point #1)

2) That they want to communicate.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, this is all supposition. But let us assume they want to. What's to say they haven't? I remember someone in previous thread had asked why maybe they haven't tried to communicate via radio frequenceis. Well to be more specific, maybe they've tried to communicate on a much deeper level than crop circles (assuming some crop circles are for real of course) or lights. But their technology might simply not be compatible. To give an example. We now a days consider ourselves to have more advanced technology than say 20-30 years ago. Let us say I miraculously some how found a way to travel back in time. I arrive in the late 70's early 80's Ok, I'm obviously going to look slightly strange to some of the people of that time (this is not the point though) lets say I go to someone and say I come from the future, and that I can prove it by showing him some information I have stored, and I pull out a DVD disc, or a Blu Ray disc. Well it might sound nice and dandy except for the fact that back then everything was in Betamax.

The obvious disparity in technologies will not allow me to corroborate my story, and if anything, will make me look like a whack job. Now put this into the context of UFO phenomenon. It could very well be that they are/have been trying to communicate with us, it could very well be that yes they do have an understanding of something we consider so basic as radio frequency. However, we are assuming they have the tools to do so. Maybe, this is the reason why they might have to resort to doing crop circles, or through flashing lights in the sky (assuming that some crop circles and light are for real and not fake) because they found out "shoot, I don't have the proper tools to transmit a message to these earthlings.

Point #3 coming, please don't comment just yet. Thank you.

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 08:55 PM
Point #3: the argument of "I will believe it when they land on the white house lawn/my back yard"

This is an argument that I've seen many skeptics throw around in order to try and discredit UFO believers. I think this argument is very poor thought for a number of reasons.

For one, on the argument of "I will believe it until it lands on my back yard" you're making the assumption that YOUR opinion on the subject (or in some cases, you believe that YOU yourself are so important) that unless it happens to you then every other piece of evidence is immediately null and void. Note, I'm not saying this argument is valid to all skeptics, but only to those who are so incredibly arrogant and egotistical that they truly believe only their opinions matter (such as some skeptics which I've seen on a number of UFO shows). You're making the assumption (as I have posted earlier) that Aliens are going to be looking on the yellow book for your name and decide to make a trip specifically for you and you alone instead of maximizing their efforts and expose themselves to a bigger audience.

What these skeptics should be doing instead of simply dismissing every single piece of evidence because "I was not there to see it, therefore it could be that you're crazy/lieing to me" is take a real good look at the evidence, witness accounts and at least find sensible alternatives/explanations. I'm all for healthy skepticism, but sometimes these skeptics can go to far and end up being a little too irrational personally.

on the argument of "I'll believe it when they land on the white house lawn and leave a crop circle" again, we're making assumptions of the beings' intelligence (see point #1) we're making the assumptions that they actually know who our leaders are or that they even care who our leaders are. I think that if they really are here and are studying our species, they probably see us no different than we see a biologist studying lions. Oh sure, a biologist can determine a male and a female lion, and can even determine the basic structure of a pride of lions, and yes, even tell who the leader is. However, I doubt any biologist worth his salt would try to go into the middle of a pride of lions to try and talk diplomacy to the leader of this pack whom by the way, doesn't understand fluent human language. I'm sure tehy'd know they'd become instant lion food.

Look, there's healthy skepticism, and then there's irrational skepticism bordering on prejudice towards any "crazy UFO fanatic" and I think that if we are to make any progress in finding out the truth. We have to start monitoring ourselves and our perceptions.

Which finally this brings me to my final point. Which will be short, sweet and to the point (no pun intended) Please don't comment until I'm done.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 09:09 PM
Point #4: On the question of their willingness to communicate

Ok, we've all heard this before "Why don't they land in the middle of central park? why don't they land on the white house lawn?" My thoughts on this are simple. We are by far one of the most vicious, greedy, selfish, self absorbed, brutal and power hungry ba**ards to ever walk the planet (unless someone can point out to another animal species, please do so).

We manipulate and destroy everything in our wake, we wage wars over some of the silliest and ridiculous stuff, rather than work together towards harmony. Now I'm not saying we're ALL this way, but if you were an alien looking in on us, looking at the destruction we've caused, and this goes beyond WW2, or the genocidal attrocities of russia and africa, it goes beyond our own wars here in america both against the british and against the southern confederacy. It goes even beyond the vile actions we've done all in the name of our religious faith. Why the heck would an alien species want to land in the middle of the lions den? I can at least give them credit for trying by leaving messages in crop circles or lights in the sky. But I could definetely understand, and if they really are trying to mingle with us, chances are they're either hiding or disguising themselves very well. I doubt they'd actually expose themselves outright, not until they (or our the secret government projects, if they really are working with aliens in area 51) deem that we've finally reached that level of consciousness to "earn" the "privilege" to see them in their real form.

Ok, that's it, hopefully it wasn't too long of a read he he. But sometimes I can't help until I get all my thoughts out. Hope this can help UFO investigators, as well as skeptics in the future or not. You make up your mind.

"Remember, it's not the answer that is important... It's the Question" (Think about it closely and you'll understand what this phrase means, I think this way too whenever I read/think/research anything)

Guess I do have one more point, please let me finish my point before commenting.

P.S. there might be some more detailed points I will make in the future that can maybe help out. But for now, I'm kinda tired from typing that much lol!

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

posted on Jan, 11 2008 @ 10:23 PM
Point# 5: On the question of trusting the sources

This I guess goes side by side with the point on extreme skeptics who will simply not be satisfied with anything short of a landing on their backyard.

Some months back we have had what I would consider one of the most important events known as the disclosure project. In this event we had high ranking individuals bear out their knowledge and involvement on the UFO phenomenon. Personally I believe that they (at least the high ranking officials that have yet to be proven wrong) are telling the truth in that they might have definetely been involved or seen something that might be out of this world, or a secret government project. However, how were they treated by the main stream media and other irrational skeptics? with ridicule and humor, as if somehow this event was nothing more than a circus show. Or at least they made it seem that way so that nobody could take them seriously.

Look, I don't know whether there really is something out there or not, I've had two experiences in my lifetime that have made me question the UFO phenomenon, and it shook me enough to the core to find as much information as I can get my hands on. If you ever met me in person, you could hardly consider me a tin foil wearing nut job. I consider myself a very sane individual and many have claimed my level of intelligence is too high for my age. I'm only 25 and some already say I talk and think like someone in his 40's (no surprise since I always got along better with my teachers than I did my classmates). But I digress. What I'm trying to say here is that we here at ATS, as members of both the supporting crowd, and the skeptic crowd have to create a hypothetical bridge within our groups. The skeptics that outright deny the claims of these high ranking individuals should really stop for a moment and think if that is a sensible way of thinking. In my opinion, these people stand to loose more by exposing these stories thant they do gain, as mentioned, their stories were met with ridicule and probably won't be able to get an equal job toi what they had before because of this.

On the flip side, the extreme believers on the other side of the fence should be careful as well where they get their sources, don't tryst everything either. substantiate claims and more importantly, don't attack fellow skeptics because they don't believe you. This is the obvious reason why we have the two extremes in the first place. Both groups have to study the evidence closely.

I can definetely understand that it can be hard to trust sources of claims of UFO's. I'm sure everyone here can come up with excuses as to why high ranking, sane individuals would stand up in front of the world and bear their knowledge, but in the end, you have to ask yourself if your reasoning is sensible. Sometimes, we have to give leeway and simply trust that what they're saying could very well be true, not ridicule them.

Ok, comment away, and I hope I'm not being too vague in my points.

[edit on 11-1-2008 by Question]

new topics

top topics

log in